Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/larouche.lyndon/larouche.018

Archive/File: larouche larouche.018
Last-modified: 1993/05/08
XRef: index larouche, larouche larouche.ihr
LaRouche's racialism, like Hitler's, doesn't just target the British.
In a softer form it applies to most of the human race, whom LaRouche
accuses of being mired in sheeplike beastiality and thus requiring
close surveillance by LaRouchian shepheds. He professes great
compassion for the sheep. Their subhuman state is the fault of the
British. Once the latter are removed from the scene, the sheep's
heredity can be changed, raising future generations to the level of
true humanity.
LaRouche describes this process using terms from Plato's 'Republic,'
in which society is composed of an ascending scale of bronze, silver,
and golden souls. But his ideas are very different from Plato's. To
LaRouche the bronze soul is a sensuous donkeylike wretch (or worse).
To Plato the bronze soul was an upright moral citizen whose role was
to build the weath of society through craftsmanship and commerce. To
LaRouche the silver soul is someone who has begun to accept political
leadership from LaRouche or at least has developed an "organic"
humanism parallel to LaRouche's (e.g. South Africa's white rulers).
To Plato the silver soul was not defined by his ideology but by his
specific function and talents - he was a member of the warrior class.
To LaRouche the golden souls are himself and those few lieutenants of
his who have fully assimilated his intellectual method - the
so-called "hyposethis of the higher hypothesis." To Plato the golden
souls were the philosopher-statesmen who took care of government
affairs and studied higher ethical and metaphysical principles to
guide them in their work. These principles, as expressed by Socrates
in Plato's dialogues, have little in common with LaRouche's ideology.
Plato never theorized about a hypothesis of the higher hypothesis.
Nor did he regard his philosopher-kings as a biologically superior
race.
LaRouche's misappropriation of Platonism as a buttress for modern
fascism is not unique to LaRouche. In 1939, Dr. Otto Dietrich, the
head of Hitler's press bureau, announced that Hitler's views on
leadership were "in entire conformity" with Plato's "immortal Laws"
which teach the "voluntary subordination of the masses, whilst at the
same time bringing the 'wise men from within them to leadership.'"
Platonic jargon was also adopted by Oswald Mosley, fu"hrer of the
British Union of Fascists, and by members of South Africa's
Broederbond during their rise to power after World War II.
When LaRouche begins to talk about specific ethnic groups, his humanist
devotion to raising bronze souls out of ther bestial mire suddenly
disappears - apparently because they so stubbornly resist the values
of his would-be golden souls. He adopts instead a relentless racism
fit more for a master race than idealistic shepherds. For instance,
the Chinese are a "paranoid" people who share, with "lower forms of
animal life," a "fundamental distinction from actually human
personalities." American blacks who insist on equal rights are
obsessed with distinctions that "would be proper to the
classification of varieties of monkeys and baboons." Puerto Ricans
are intellectually impotent representatives of a culture based on
"'macho' pathology" and crazed blood oaths. Italians, also impotent,
are obsessed with churches, whorehouses, and "images of the Virgin
Mary" (whose "goddam smile" LaRouche would like to remove from public
view by closing Italy's churches). Irish-Americans are
representatives of a backward Catholic "ethnic piggishness" and are
responsible for a "hideous mind-and-body-eroding orgy of fertility."
Tribal peoples, as in Brazil's Amazon Basin, have a "likeness to a
lower beast."
These attitudes have definite implications for LaRouche's doctrine of
world conquest. In discussion U.S. treatment of American Indians in
the nineteenth century and the conquest of Mexican territories in
1848 by General Winfield Scott, LaRouche asked: "Was it ... correct
for the American branch of European humanist culture to absorb the
territories occupied by a miserable, relatively bestial culture of
indigenous Americans? _Absolutely_. Was it correct to absorb ... the
areas taken in the Mexican-American War? Historically, yes - for the
same reason." And the underlying principle? "We do not regard all
cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or
survival." (King, 289-290)
Work Cited
King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York:
Doubleday, 1989

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.